So, Malack...

[Inst]

In real life, there have been many examples of progressive entities that have brought forward civilization at massive human costs. If you contest that point, I'll have to drop it, though.

The main valid point I see you have is that the textual sources are limited. You get most of your information about the way the Western Continent works and is run from people who are aligned with Tarquin, and that makes them suspect as sources.

I do not see Ian Starshine as a valid source, though, since he's obviously a neurotic paranoiac with a heavy bias against any form of formal authority. It's true that he's fighting against a regime with significant human rights violations, but that doesn't justify his viewpoint. I would say that if Ian Starshine accused Tarquin of eating babies, that doesn't necessarily make it true, but given Tarquin's characterization I don't think it would surprise anyone if Tarquin actually ate babies.

[Paseo H]

Whether Tarquin and co's empire is ultimately better by some cold calculus is quite honestly beside the point, as far as his being a sickeningly evil monster goes. Same with Malack.

[Inst]

I would have you remember that in Malack's case, until he became an obvious death cultist who wants to sacrifice 365,000 people yearly, he was merely an enabler. In the event that Tarquin's empire was a net good compared to the alternatives, that wouldn't have made him evil, perhaps neutral, however, through association.

===

One thing I do think Rich can explore is the justifications evil makes for itself. Tarquin is a charismatic man, and Malack is highly persuasive. I think aside from the knee-jerk do-gooders like the Starshines, reasonable people might find themselves attracted to Tarquin. The trick is for Tarquin to be in the net a negative influence, however, which makes it a more fascinating study of why people enable bad actors.

[Paseo H]

I would have you remember that in Malack's case, until he became an obvious death cultist who wants to sacrifice 365,000 people yearly, he was merely an enabler. In the event that Tarquin's empire was a net good compared to the alternatives, that wouldn't have made him evil, perhaps neutral, however, through association.

===

One thing I do think Rich can explore is the justifications evil makes for itself. Tarquin is a charismatic man, and Malack is highly persuasive. I think aside from the knee-jerk do-gooders like the Starshines, reasonable people might find themselves attracted to Tarquin. The trick is for Tarquin to be in the net a negative influence, however, which makes it a more fascinating study of why people enable bad actors.

Malack was obviously evil to those who could infer the overall context of his "enabling" and "association." 875 and 876 simply made the truth indefeasible to those who couldn't or wouldn't see it before.

[SaintRidley]

I would have you remember that in Malack's case, until he became an obvious death cultist who wants to sacrifice 365,000 people yearly, he was merely an enabler. In the event that Tarquin's empire was a net good compared to the alternatives, that wouldn't have made him evil, perhaps neutral, however, through association.

All possibility of him being neutral ended the moment he revealed that he was using the imperial apparatus as a food-delivery system through rigged courts. Tarquin's empire is only a net good when compared to Tarquin's empire plus death cult. Literally anything else will be either at the same level, or better. Cutting a bloody swath across a continent, no matter how much you might "advance civilization" is evil. Period. Being a knowing, willing, and active part of said cutting is as well.

[Warren Dew]

Malack was obviously evil to those who could infer the overall context of his "enabling" and "association." 875 and 876 simply made the truth indefeasible to those who couldn't or wouldn't see it before.

At least until it turns out that the story arc is about Durkon turning into a vampire and seeing how his formerly Mikoesque snap judgements of things with "always evil" alignments were misguided, and undead are people after all.

Actually, I really hope the plot doesn't turn that way, but I've been disappointed before.

[Paseo H]

At least until it turns out that the story arc is about Durkon turning into a vampire and seeing how his formerly Mikoesque snap judgements of things with "always evil" alignments were misguided, and undead are people after all.

Actually, I really hope the plot doesn't turn that way, but I've been disappointed before.

I'd worry about that too but The Giant himself said that Durkon wasn't being a Miko on this.

[Sir_Leorik]

At least until it turns out that the story arc is about Durkon turning into a vampire and seeing how his formerly Mikoesque snap judgements of things with "always evil" alignments were misguided, and undead are people after all.

Actually, I really hope the plot doesn't turn that way, but I've been disappointed before.

How is Durkon behaving like Miko? Unlike Miko, Durkon was willing to give Malack the benefit of the doubt until he caught Malack driking Belkar's blood. That's not the same as determining that you should murder your liege because he lied to you. Furthermore, Durkon gave Malack a chance to explain, then explained his own position clearly (or as clearly as Durkon can). What more do you need to see to realize that Malack is Lawful Evil?

[Sir_Leorik]

Just to point out, predictable reasons in Tarquinland are pretty much anything. If he wants you dead, he'll find a way. It's anarchy under the guise of a state.

Tarquin's Empire is Lawful, in the sense that there are clear laws that must be obeyed. It is not anarchic in that sense. Do the Laws need to make sense? Absolutely not. Tarquin has constructed three reqimes whose sole purpose to benefit himself (and five of his buddies). In practice Tarquin's state is not much different from real world autocracies and totalitarian regimes (I will not be naming any) where the head of state imposed a corrupt bureaucracy that was designed to provide material benefits to the ruler. In practice these regimes need to either constantly rotate the middle management to avoid collapse, rot from within until the people rebel, or are overthrown by a confederation of foreign democracies (sometimes with a few dictatorships that are also threatened joining in). Tarquin is going with option one; the Empress of Blood and her fellow patsies keep being replaced, but because no one knows they are figureheads people believe that option three is occurring (except for the part about democracies overthrowing them ).

[Dark Matter]

In D&D Lawful Evil governments can be stable because of the influence of LE gods and their Clerics. Tarquin has set up a situation where LE behavior is rewarded and non-Lawful non-Evil behavior is punished.

You get ahead in one of Tarquin's countries by being more ruthless and more Evil than whoever you're competing against. This is true whether it be in government, a beauty contest, or a high school marching band.

That is why the current situation is extremely likely to be much worse than whatever came before. Tarquin is uber competent, when he's done, in theory the entire continent will be uniformally Evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

In D&D Lawful Evil governments can be stable because of the influence of LE gods and their Clerics. Tarquin has set up a situation where LE behavior is rewarded and non-Lawful non-Evil behavior is punished.

You get ahead in one of Tarquin's countries by being more ruthless and more Evil than whoever you're competing against. This is true whether it be in government, a beauty contest, or a high school marching band.

That is why the current situation is extremely likely to be much worse than whatever came before. Tarquin is uber competent, when he's done, in theory the entire continent will be uniformally Evil.

And even if Tarquin and his band are prevented from achieving their goal of conquering the whole Western Continent, they will pass into legend as the group that came the closest to doing so.

[pendell]

I trace my own viewpoint vis-a-vis Malack's alignment in this fashion :

Prior to 872 (Malack attempts to Vamp Belkar) : Some credible evidence that Malack is evil. That he was lawful was never in question. But we don't see him do much evil on camera apart from threaten to feed Elan to a dragon, he seems disgusted by Tarquin's dieting, helps Durkon research his spell. He's still a participant in an LE Empire, but as discussed that is not a certain indication of Evil alignment.

872: Preponderance of evidence. LE is now the most likely alignment (required by template; vamping Belkar; participation in the EOB) but LN is still not completely out of the question.

876 : Beyond Reasonable doubt . Malack has not only shown evil deeds on camera but he as admitted to the intent to commit evil now and in the future. Now just a little evil. Massive, concentration-camp evil.

As I discussed earlier, in a different thread, when "monster" is what you do rather than what you are, Rich must first establish someone is a monster by having them commit evil on-panel. Malack has now been thoroughly and appropriately monsterized. Now all we need is for the heroes to beat him.
Go heroes!


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dervag]

I would have you remember that in Malack's case, until he became an obvious death cultist who wants to sacrifice 365,000 people yearly, he was merely an enabler. In the event that Tarquin's empire was a net good compared to the alternatives, that wouldn't have made him evil, perhaps neutral, however, through association.

I've always thought that alignment is about intrinsic personal attitude. The reason your alignment shifts when you do things is because your actions are supposed to reflect on your character's inner thoughts; otherwise you could insist that the character was "Lawful Good" while acting Chaotic Stupid-Evil at all times.

If Malack's long term goals are evil, and he personally is of a type of creature that is... biased toward evil by nature (because vampires see normal people as prey), and he enables an empire which commits acts of evil (even if lesser-evil), I think you'd really have to stretch it to make him not evil.

I mean, before we knew Malack's long-term plans, when he seemed a basically affable guy who wasn't plotting to kill millions and didn't prey on people for fun, it was at least credible that he was a neutral-aligned being. That he mostly worked with Tarquin because they were friends (which is still true; even evil characters can value friendship, see [http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html]here[/url]

Granted, he did commit some evil acts- the real question is whether it's possible to be sometimes evil (or callous) and still overall neutral, or not.

[hamishspence]

I trace my own viewpoint vis-a-vis Malack's alignment in this fashion :

Any other characters you've got a similar chart for? Seems like a sensible and logical way of doing it.

[pendell]

Sorry, Hamish , can't say I do. Most characters in the comic aren't as interesting or as complex as Malack. There's never really been much question whether Xykon (for example) is evil and Roy is good. The only character I can think of as really questionable is Miko post-fall. She fell from being a Paladin. does that also meant she alignment-shifted to True Neutral as well? Or was she still a lawful good fighter-without-bonus-feats?

I think there's a creditable argument that she did, given the Deva was ready to kick Roy over to the true neutral for abandoning Elan. But I'd still put that at "preponderance of evidence". I wouldn't put it into "beyond reasonable doubt" until we encountered her in the true neutral afterlife or had direct Word of gods that this was so.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Sorry, Hamish , can't say I do. Most characters in the comic aren't as interesting or as complex as Malack.

How about Tarquin, from his first appearance to his explanation of his Plan?

V, from the last moments of the Battle for Azure City, to the rescue of O-chul, might qualify, if there's reason to think V went from Neutral to Evil and back.

[Winter]

I think you could try to follow this pattern for:

Haley (over long parts of the comic), Vaarsuvius, Miko (also pre-fall if you ignore the rule-necessity of being LG for being a Paladin), and Tarquin.

[hamishspence]

I think at least one poster has a time chart for Miko in their sig, showing their view of how close to the LG line she was. Not sure where.

[Dark Matter]

Miko is seriously hard. She's a high level character who is close to the border between Good & non-Good. So she's had a ton of stuff happen off camera, and it's horribly easy to see what we want to.

She -can't- have been doing Evil, but her pre-fall on-camera actions come pretty close and it's implied that she was over the edge.

[Syncro]

Malack is evil but not a complete moster, he conspiricises with Tarquin to run a curropt empire(which is what Durkon was really disturbed about(him being a vampire is also a part of it(< which might be considered unjust)) because like others have already said before, Durkon was in denial that Malack was probably with Tarquin.) Malack is lawful evil but he's not "stupid evil" or "lawful stupid" he knows what he's doing is bad but he's like Tarquin in the sense that he doesn't do the most horrendus thing possible just to provehis alignment nor would he put the law over the people he cares about. Rich has previously talked about making some of his villains not the cookie cutter evil overlord like most high fantasies do. In the end this may be an opening for character development from Durkon if he goes off the self richeous deep end ie re-examining his own principals(He does have minor lawful stupid tendancies).

[The Succubus]

I know there have been a few folks commenting about about how Malack might have been Lawful Neutral. I have prepared a small rebuttal to this theory:

He clamped his teeth around a Lawful Good cleric's throat and promptly sucked out every last drop of blood. The only way he could have been more Evil is by using a Silly Straw to do it.

[Paseo H]

Miko is seriously hard. She's a high level character who is close to the border between Good & non-Good. So she's had a ton of stuff happen off camera, and it's horribly easy to see what we want to.

She -can't- have been doing Evil, but her pre-fall on-camera actions come pretty close and it's implied that she was over the edge.

Wasn't it once said that she was on the verge of a psychotic break or actually had one beforehand?

EDIT: Ah, found it.

[pendell]

How about Tarquin, from his first appearance to his explanation of his Plan?

He was shouted out as lawful evil in his first appearance in the divorce scene

V, from the last moments of the Battle for Azure City, to the rescue of O-chul, might qualify, if there's reason to think V went from Neutral to Evil and back.

I'm thinking that, as a rule, individual deeds do not an alignment change make. V did some serious evil but V also seriously repented and did all V could to make up for the misdeeds. V is still on a journey of repentance and atonement.

I believe at present there is no clear and compelling evidence for an alignment shift from True Neutral. The familicide would be 'credible evidence', but I don't see enough evidence to meet the 'preponderance of evidence test' that it has resulted in a fundamental shift in V's attitudes, intentions, or motivations. True Neutral V was. True neutral V remains. In my view, absent additional evidence.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[MarchiMcFly]

Malack is evil but not a complete moster

Malack IS a complete monster, by is actions and by it's very nature. It's funny to see how a lot of people in the forum are ready to attack PALADINS actions any time they have the opportunity to, but go for a great lenght to excuse the actions of a blood-sucking, people-sacrificing, eternal tyrant wannabe, undead monstruosity.
Also, I don't think that destroying undeads can be considered wrong in nearly every situation, they are anomaly of the Life/Death circle created trough evil spells and should not exist. If anything, destroying an undead free its soul that can then reach the Afterlife it deserves...or you can resurrect the poor fellow and give it back its life.
This is the way to do good to the undeads.

[Sir_Leorik]

I know there have been a few folks commenting about about how Malack might have been Lawful Neutral. I have prepared a small rebuttal to this theory:

He clamped his teeth around a Lawful Good cleric's throat and promptly sucked out every last drop of blood. The only way he could have been more Evil is by using a Silly Straw to do it.

Using a silly straw would just demonstrate that Malack's Chaotic Evil rather than Lawful Evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

Until she murdered Lord Shojo, Miko was hovering on the edge of losing her paladinhood, but had not yet committed any Evil acts yet. She was basically adhering to the letter of the Lawful Good alignment, whereas Roy, Durkon and O-Chul adhere to the letter and the spirit of Lawful Good. The bonus strips in War and XPs highlight how Miko was rude to her fellow Paladins, was haughty regarding her station and believed she was destined for greatness. That doesn't make her Evil or Chaotic, it made her a jerk, just like the Paladin who led Roy's first adventuring party in OtOoPCs.

Murdering Shojo was a big deal: an act that was both Evil and Chaotic. She murdered a defenseless old man who was begging for his life, and said old man was her liege lord that she had sworn to obey.

And Miko never repented her behavior or atoned for her sins, as Soon Kim pointed out to her shortly before she died. She did get to enter the Celestial Realm, so she was still Lawful Good when she died.

[hamishspence]

At the time, there was a bit of speculation as to whether "we will usher you to your destination as well" meant that Miko would go to a plane one or more steps away from the Celestial Realm- maybe Arcadia or something similar.

(Arcadia being a mix of LG and LN- might have people of both alignments).

After all, not all the Twelve Gods are lawful good- implying that not all inhabit the Celestial Realm.

Miko's horse visiting her "as much as he is able" might imply otherwise, however.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Murdering Shojo was a big deal: an act that was both Evil and Chaotic. She murdered a defenseless old man who was begging for his life, and said old man was her liege lord that she had sworn to obey.

Nope. It was evil and lawful.

Her oath to the Sapphire Guard and Soon trumps the fact that Shojo was her liege lord. He was guilty of violating the oath of the Sapphire Guard and, as such, was no longer considered her lawful superior.

Executing him on the spot was well within the rights of a lawful character. It just happened to be evil too because, you know, he was a CG defenseless old man and there was no need to kill him.

[SaintRidley]

I'm not sure Shojo could really be considered guilty of breaking the oath, what with his never having sworn it.

[hamishspence]

Given that Miko subsequent ended up in jail- it was probably "illegal" whether or not it was lawful.

War & XPs commentary says (of the discovery of Shojo's masquerade)

"Hinjo's reaction was that of someone who believes in the law, whereas Miko's was that of someone who believes herself above the law".

Or words to that effect.